From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Current 2.6.x TSO state Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:04:56 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20041001170456.3ec52222.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20040930213221.06a3f5b3.davem@davemloft.net> <20041001121123.19511403.ak@suse.de> <20041001124733.1ac4266a.davem@davemloft.net> <20041001195146.GA23046@wotan.suse.de> <20041001125643.30c6830f.davem@davemloft.net> <20041001231939.GC23046@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ak@suse.de, netdev@oss.sgi.com, jheffner@psc.edu, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Return-path: To: Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <20041001231939.GC23046@wotan.suse.de> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 01:19:39 +0200 Andi Kleen wrote: > > As mentioned, the TCP receive buffer auto-tuning takes care > > of all of this in 2.6.6 and later. It's just 2.6.5 doesn't > > How do you explain the 2-4MB/s less with manually increased > receive buffers? Some scheduling differences, I suppose. Frankly, I've done what I can with the TSO stuff at this point. All I get from you are "it's slower" and no code, I've had to write and fix and debug everything for you. The performance is close or on-par to non-TSO and more importantly TSO abides by the congestion window and MSS values properly now. That's 10 times more important than 2-4MB/s performance difference. Or maybe I should revert all of the TSO work so that all SpecWEB submissions done with 2.6.x kernels get invalidated?